Judging points lost for a wiring splice on my 1988 hood light

[John G.]

The two wires that run to the left side underhood lamp on my 1988 have a splice in them. How many judging points will I lose for this?

88-corvette-hood-wiring-slice.jpg

[Jim S.]

Re: Judging points lost for a wiring splice on my 1988 hood light

The two wires that run to the left side underhood lamp on my 1988 have a splice in them. How many judging points will I lose for this?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]69786[/ATTACH]

IMO, the Hood Lights in total have 3 originally points. Even if you judged the wiring alone and didn't include the rest of 'Hood Lights', the only issue is Configuration which would be 20% of 3 or .6 of a point. Considering there is more to judge on that line item, I would use a 'dot' at most and simply make a notation on the judging sheet for the owners information.

[John G.]

Re: Judging points lost for a wiring splice on my 1988 hood light

Thanks. I'll focus on more important items like finding a replacement for my broken hatch ajar switch and finding 2B1 headlights.

[Jim S.]

Re: Judging points lost for a wiring splice on my 1988 hood light

And there are 2 hood lights, and the wiring is only disturbed on one of them. So .3 of a point using your methodology.

I, working with a partner from the core C4 Team would take 1 point. That is an obvious deviation from originality. And it didn't have to happen, there's a connector 24" further down that could have been unplugged. C4's brought to Flight Judging are generally nice, well preserved, sometimes a little grungy and "aged", but have mostly original content. To find an obvious "repair" is unusual, and not "consistent" with what we usually see. So 1 point will most likely be taken by any of the National level C4 Chassis Team members IF they catch it. They might not. You never know.

Just for the sake of discussion, using CDCIF I don't understand how you would value it at a 1 point deduction. The issue is configuration, there isn't a date issue, there isn't a completeness issue, there isn't an installation issue and there isn't a finish issue so a 20% deduct is the most even if the wiring was the only item on the line. I'm not a C4 guy but help me understand.

[Dave P.]

Re: Judging points lost for a wiring splice on my 1988 hood light

.............................................

[Paul S.]

Re: Judging points lost for a wiring splice on my 1988 hood light

To continue this discussion, another way of looking at this; the '87 - '89 Judging Guide under Hood Lights reads, "The hood engine lights lens have groves of approximately 6 per inch and are molded with part number 16056291-6" and doesn't mention anything else.

I think the next section down on the Scoring Sheet, 6. Wiring and Relays would be where this wire splice would be scored. The language in the Judging Guide, Underhood Wiring, specifically mentions, "spliced wires are not acceptable". On the scoring sheet the wiring line is worth 7 originality points and 8 condition points. If this was the only deduct for wiring I think it would score 20% of 7 points or 1.4 rounded down to 1 and what ever deduction the condition warrants. Same point value, previously discussed, just taken in a different spot.

Another thing I've noticed, many C4 judges I've worked with use "dots" for dirt, not for partial points. So, this splice probably wouldn't get a "dot".
Just my opinion, hope it helps...Paul

[Jim S.]

Re: Judging points lost for a wiring splice on my 1988 hood light

Yes, that does help. Not having a '87-'89 judging guide I did not know what Hood Lights included.

[John G.]

Re: Judging points lost for a wiring splice on my 1988 hood light

Thanks for all the comments. I replaced the offending wire pair with wires from a wrecked '88 so hopefully no deduct.

[Paul O.]

Re: Judging points lost for a wiring splice on my 1988 hood light

One must consider this when judging are those parts still the original design for the car. If yes then the issue here is condition that item has been damaged but it is still the original part for the car. So if any deduction would occur it should be on the condition side not originality side of scoring.

[Terry M.]

Re: Judging points lost for a wiring splice on my 1988 hood light

One must consider this when judging are those parts still the original design for the car. If yes then the issue here is condition that item has been damaged but it is still the original part for the car. So if any deduction would occur it should be on the condition side not originality side of scoring.

I disagree.
The configuration of the part has been altered, thus the originality is changed. If the insulation were melted, discolored, or deteriorated we are talking condition, but to cut apart and add material for a splice has altered the originality of the part.

Interesting discussion though. It might be a fun example for part of a judging school so long as the perspective that we are talking about a point or two is maintained.

[Jim S.]

Re: Judging points lost for a wiring splice on my 1988 hood light

One must consider this when judging are those parts still the original design for the car. If yes then the issue here is condition that item has been damaged but it is still the original part for the car. So if any deduction would occur it should be on the condition side not originality side of scoring.

CONDITION is caused by nature, (age, wear, rust, damage, etc) CONFIGURATION is caused by man. This wiring 'change' is judged under originality.

[Paul O.]

Re: Judging points lost for a wiring splice on my 1988 hood light

This should keep this discussion going.

Here we go Damage can also be caused by man. If you crush a part is it still original part or item yes but it is damaged. There are a multitude of ways a man can damage any item or part yet keep it originality. It is how much effort it would take to return that item or part to its original state.

As for Terry's assessment if the wires were spices yes the configuration has changed but it is still damaged due to cutting of the wire to begin with. One could argue it has both an originality and a condition issue.

[Jim S.]

Re: Judging points lost for a wiring splice on my 1988 hood light

This should keep this discussion going.

Here we go Damage can also be caused by man. If you crush a part is it still original part or item yes but it is damaged. There are a multitude of ways a man can damage any item or part yet keep it originality. It is how much effort it would take to return that item or part to its original state.

As for Terry's assessment if the wires were spices yes the configuration has changed but it is still damaged due to cutting of the wire to begin with. One could argue it has both an originality and a condition issue.

Damage would be judged under condition as long as it's complete. Let's use an example from a recent Chapter meet. A 1959 one piece 4V aluminum air cleaner that had one side heavily crushed. It was complete and it could be mounted on a carb. The judging sheets for Carbureted Air Filter calls for 27 Originality Points and 27 Condition Points.
Nothing should be deducted for originality, it was Configured correctly, it was Complete, it was Date correct and it was the correct Finish.
The condition could be subject up to a 75% deduction. (Based on the new condition evaluation that was taught at the recent Judging Retreat) So total deduction was under Condition for 20 points.

[John G.]

Re: Judging points lost for a wiring splice on my 1988 hood light

My lamp holder assembly was like new so I removed the wiring from it and replaced it with the wiring from the donor car. I'd guess that someone was going to install a cutout switch but cutting both wires doesn't make any sense. With some replacement wiring clips in place it really looks good.

Some day maybe I'll understand the Judging Reference Manual section 4 standard deductions better. Hopefully I can get a class in this at a meet. Thanks for all the help.